Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
1
Equity and Dual Language Immersion: Curriculum
Deborah K. Palmer
Introduction: Defining Curriculum
I have been tasked with considering questions of equity in the area of Curriculum in
two-way dual language bilingual education (TWBE). TWBE programs are a specific and popular
model of enrichment bilingual education in the United States that enrolls approximately equal
numbers of students identified as dominant in English and in a target language (usually
Spanish). 1 In these programs, children learn language through content and they learn content
through both program languages. Programs follow structured language allocation policies, with
various mechanisms for separating instruction in each language: some divide languages by
teacher, or time of day, or content area, or day of the week. According to the most recent
“Guiding Principles” for TWDL education produced by the Center for Applied Linguistics, TWDL
programs share three program goals: “grade level academic achievement,” “bilingualism and
biliteracy,” and “sociocultural competence” (Howard, et al., 2018)
Before I begin this exploration, I also need to define curriculum. I am not in the field of
Curriculum Studies and in truth have given little thought to general questions of curriculum in
my scholarship. So, I asked my colleague from the University of Texas at Austin, Dr. Noah
DeLissovoy, who is strongly situated in this area. Noah told me he thinks of curriculum as:
1 Because most of the TWDL programs in the US are Spanish/English programs, and because these are the programs I have spent my career working within, at times in this paper I will refer to Spanish as the target language of TWDL programs; at the same time, I want to recognize that TWDL programs exist in a wide range of languages.
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
2
The various ways in which knowledge is framed, becomes present, and is deployed in
schools, as well as the ways in which basic orientations are formed and reproduced.
(DeLissovoy, email correspondence, October 2018)
This definition suits my exploration in the paper that will follow. I am concerned here with how
we decide what knowledge is important, how we bring our students to become aware of
important knowledge, and how our decisions around knowledge are shaped by our own (or
others’) sometimes unspoken ideologies. To put it plainly, I will be talking about the ways in
which both “what we teach” and “how we teach” in a TWBE classroom need to change in order
to be more equitable, and about the orientations or ideologies that underlie decisions related
to what or how we teach.
Critical Consciousness at the Core. Often, the practitioner-directed literature in TWBE
boasts that the curriculum is “the same” grade-level curriculum as it is in every other school,
merely delivered in the target language (e.g., Howard et al., 2018; Howard & Sugarman, 2007).
The intention of this is to assert that the curriculum is not remedial in any way, that it is the
same rigorous, grade-level material that English-dominant (presumably middle-class) students
are receiving in other schools. Of course, this is certainly a valid and worthwhile assertion, and
it is quite possible a necessary promise if we expect to continue to attract English-dominant
middle-class students to TWBE schools. Students in a TWBE program deserve a rigorous,
academically engaging curriculum that covers that required content for each grade; this is
central to the success of any school program. Delivery of material in the program’s target
languages also is imperative.
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
3
Yet at the same time, the goals and the population of a TWBE program are specific, and
quite often different from a monolingual English program in the same context. To ensure
equity, the curriculum needs to reflect these differences. More than merely providing the
mainstream curriculum in two (or more) languages, a DLBE program must center its curriculum
upon the voices and knowledges of the members of its own community, particularly the often-
marginalized members of that community whose experiences will not necessarily be reflected
in the mainstream curriculum. In addition, a TWBE curriculum must directly confront and call
into question what Apple (1990) described as the “hidden curriculum,” the hegemony of our
construction of important knowledge, embedded in selection of materials and media as well as
in the incidental moments, relationships, routines, and sanctioned language practices in
classrooms. Because equity is a core goal for diverse TWBE classrooms and key to the academic
success of students who come from historically marginalized communities, TWBE curricula
must explicitly teach critical awareness of oppression and hegemony, and center historically
marginalized stories and voices, in terms of both the content and delivery of knowledge.
At the heart of the issue, indeed at the heart of every issue related to equity in TWBE, is
the need for critical consciousness (Cervantes-Soon et al., 2017), also referred to as ideological
clarity (Alfaro & Hernández, 2018; Bartolomé & Balderrama, 2001). Educators, leaders,
students, and parents must consider and push back against structural inequities in making
every decision, in designing and delivering every lesson, and in every engagement or interaction
in a TWBE school (Palmer, Cervantes-Soon, Dorner & Heiman, In Press). Critical awareness must
be pervasive. Given the diversity of experiences and backgrounds of the students in a typical
TWBE context, such a critical orientation helps ensure that voices often marginalized in US
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
4
school contexts, are centered. It helps to ensure that minoritized emergent bilingual children’s
educational needs and strengths are the focus of the program, which will ensure that the
program’s goals are met for all students. Students whose backgrounds reflect the dominant
community will also benefit from this focus on critical consciousness; along with culturally
sustaining (Paris & Alim, 2017) language and content that will support their academic, linguistic,
and sociocultural competencies, they will learn important lessons about living in diverse
communities and becoming allies in the struggle against inequality in our stratified, racialized
society.
What is critical consciousness? Paolo Freire defines conscientizacao as “the deepening of
the attitude of awareness characteristic of all emergence” (Freire, 2000). It is transformation
that comes as a result of dialogue, in which the oppressed can embrace the liberatory power of
education and become aware of the oppressive nature of the structures of traditional schooling
and society. In recent years there has been a relatively broad and growing call in the field for
teachers with “ideological and political clarity” to work with bilingual children. Most notably,
Bartolomé and Trueba made this call (2000), stating: “the need to help teachers ‘name’ and
interrogate their ideological stances is urgent…we propose a radical transformation in teacher
preparation whereby political and ideological clarity are prioritized” (p.282). Alfaro and
Hernandez (2018) similarly argued for “four tenets” that can “propel educators to potentially
ask the tough questions that cause reflection:” Ideology, Pedagogy, Access, and Equity (p.488).
For the purposes of this paper, I will use both terms, critical consciousness and ideological
clarity; in terms of their applicability to TWDL education, I believe them to be essentially
equivalent.
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
5
In this paper, I will attempt to focus upon ways in which a critical consciousness has
potential to support equitable engagements related to curriculum. In fact, alongside the above
calls for ideological clarity among teachers, there has been a call for increasingly critical,
culturally sustaining pedagogies and curriculum for bilingual learners (Barbian, E., Gonzales, G.
C., & Mejía, P., 2017; Paris, 2012), such that students can see themselves in the curriculum and
can envision themselves as knowledge-producers.
Because “knowledge is framed, becomes present, and is deployed” by educators’
choices of content, pedagogy, and classroom language use, I place the following three
recommendations at top of the list of urgencies related to curriculum:
1. Critically-oriented, culturally sustaining (Paris & Alim, 2017) bilingual content that
reflects the histories and experiences of marginalized communities served in TWDL
schools.
2. Pedagogies of inclusion, such as structuring for participation of all, valuing contributions
of minoritized voices, centering often marginalized interactional and discourse patterns
(Martin-Beltran, 2010; Palmer, 2008b).
3. Deliberate language use, which encourages full engagement in both program languages,
both separately and together, including bilingual – translanguaging – engagements, with
an emphasis on valuing students’ own everyday language practices as tools for
knowledge construction (Palmer & Martínez, 2013; Sánchez, García, & Solorza, 2017).
In the sections that follow, I will elaborate and explain each of these, and briefly review the
literature that supports them.
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
6
At the same time and alongside these recommendations, I will also highlight the many
current policies, structures and practices in public schools that run counter to the effort to bring
in these urgent changes. These problematic policies, structures or practices undermine DLBE
program equity and effectiveness. For example:
• Monoglossic curricular mandates, in which administrators require (and teachers lack
experience or time to resist) rigid adherence to textbooks or externally supplied lesson
plans.
• High stakes, mostly monolingual (but entirely monoglossic) accountability mandates.
• Monoglossic language policies that expect teachers and bilingual students to isolate
program languages.
To briefly define a key term: Monoglossic refers to Bakhtin’s conception of the ‘centripetal
forces’ pushing toward uniformity, domination, and standardization in our language and
semiotic practices, standing in sharp contrast to the heteroglossic forces of language variation,
the “creative, style-shaping” constant evolution of the word (Bakhtin, 1998, p. 294).
Monoglossic curricular mandates, for example, are those that attempt to impose identical
curricular materials onto wildly different communities of learners (and expect similar results).
Monoglossic high stakes accountability mandates are those that attempt to assess the
knowledge or skills of different learners, who have different sets of life and school experiences,
using one tool. Monoglossic language policies value standard, monolingual language practices
above vernacular or hybrid language practices, and thus for example consistently demand that
bilingual individuals narrow their selection of communicative practices to one standard named
language at a time. Such a language policy imposes artificial and external limits on meaning-
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
7
making and expression for heteroglossic learners, and often judges them harshly for straying
from monoglossic norms. I will define each of these issues within the context of the above
recommendations, and discuss their implications in terms of the barriers they present to equity
in TWBE.
The knowledge that is valued and centered in a TWBE curriculum: critically-oriented,
culturally sustaining bilingual content
Culturally sustaining pedagogies. An equitable TWBE program that serves to educate
students through two languages and prepare them academically and culturally to engage in our
increasingly diverse world, necessarily engages students with critically-oriented, culturally
sustaining (Paris & Alim, 2017) bilingual content that reflects and centers the histories and
experiences of the wide range of communities served in the school. This in no way negates the
need for academic rigor and challenge. Quite to the contrary, the curriculum should be at once
rigorous and transformative. Transformative curricula, drawing on culturally relevant and
critical multicultural children’s literature, provides material for rich conversations in classrooms,
addressing standards while supporting children’s development of critical thinking and skills.
There is increasing evidence that children are aware of the race, class, and status
differences among members of their classrooms, and will even exploit these for their own
purposes (Fitts, 2006; García-Mateus & Palmer, 2017; Heller & Martin-Jones, 2001; Palmer,
2009a). On the other hand, when educators maintain ideological clarity and explicitly teach
students in two-way contexts to honor and appreciate the linguistic and cultural resources of
their (minoritized) peers, positive outcomes have been documented (Kibler, Salerno, &
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
8
Hardigree, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Lindholm-Leary, 2016). By selecting counter-hegemonic
materials, TWBE programs actively acknowledge and counter the histories of oppression that
have led to large discrepancies in power and privilege, especially between speakers of Spanish
and speakers of English in the US. If equity is a goal, this explicit acknowledgement must be part
of the mission of a TWDL program that enrolls both English and Spanish speakers into the same
classrooms. Resources with examples that richly illustrate rigorous culturally sustaining
curriculum and practice include Rethinking Bilingual Education (Barbian, E. et al., 2017) and
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies (Paris & Alim, 2017).
Historicizing dual language education. TWDL programs also need to acknowledge their
own role in the history of bilingual education. The modern struggle for bilingual education in
the United States has its roots in the Chicano Civil Rights movement. While TWDL became a
more politically savory version of bilingual education in recent decades, due to its explicit
inclusion of the dominant majority, denying its connection to the initial goals and intentions of
bilingual education moves TWDL programs further away from the struggle for equity.
Specifically, original advocates for bilingual education programs in the 1960’s and 1970’s had
enriching, critical visions for culturally and linguistically sustainable bilingual programming that
in many ways resembles the vision we are currently shaping for TWDL. That history of advocacy
and activism demanding strong developmental bilingual programs for Latinx students in public
schools is exemplified by the work of long-time activist Tony Baez in Milwaukee, WI (Peterson,
2017b) and by ASPIRA and the Puerto Rican community in New York City (García, Menken,
Velasco, & Vogel, 2018), among many others. For reasons of expediency and compromise,
advocates and policy makers in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s often settled for compensatory
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
9
models such as transitional bilingual education, which were admittedly arrived at through long
struggle and with the support of the courts as in cases such as Lau v. Nichols (1974) and
Castañeda v. Pickard (1981).
Meanwhile, although the first documented two-way dual language bilingual program
began at Coral Way Elementary School in Miami, FL in 1963, TWDL programs really began to
increase in number and popularity right around the same time period that developmental and
transitional bilingual education was facing intense criticism in the public sphere: in the 1980’s
through the early 2000’s. The history of struggle for permission to provide bilingual
programming in public schools serving diverse communities – whether TWDL or other bilingual
program models – can be explored as one narrative. Early activist struggles for developmental
bilingual education are intimately tied to the privilege and high status that TWDL schools garner
today. While middle-class English-speaking students may thrive regardless of the school’s
stance, I believe that the educational needs of emerging bilingual Latinx students will only be
served if their schools embrace and link to this common history.
Teachers as Curriculum Developers. All curriculum that is selected for TWDL classrooms
must be inclusive of diverse perspectives; the material sanctioned as school knowledge must
ultimately reflect the voices of all members of the school community, and it must challenge the
hegemony of traditional knowledge. Imagine a space in which the stories that live and breathe
in the community served by a school are allowed into the classroom, in which the lived
experiences of parents and leaders comprise the curriculum. If such a Funds of Knowledge
perspective (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) drives teachers’ selection (or creation) of
content in TWDL settings, and if all children’s stories and experiences are valued and contribute
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
10
to the school’s curriculum, then all children within that school will see themselves in the
sanctioned knowledge of the school. They will recognize the difference between their school’s
approach to knowledge and the approach in the world outside their school, and will have
greater potential to become advocates for a better, more equitable world. For example,
Peterson (2017a) describes the explicitly “multicultural, anti-racist” curriculum developed over
time and continually revisited by the teachers at La Escuela Fratney, a TWBE school in
Milwaukee, WI. He describes the locally constructed curriculum:
We developed four schoolwide themes, one for each quarter. The themes stress social
responsibility, activism, and respect for our students’ lives and heritage. These themes
and subthemes help new teachers understand our underlying philosophy and encourage
students, staff, and parents to work together on projects… (p.159).
DLBE schools can learn from examples like Fratney, but the innovative approach taken by
Fratney’s teachers may not suit every school; it is indeed something that must be reinvented
for each local context.
Unfortunately, such innovation does not always feel like a viable option in TWBE
schools. In many districts, particularly in schools with large numbers of EL identified students
and schools with large numbers of students of color, teachers are mandated to use particular
published mainstream curricular materials selected by administration. Administrators in many
cases require rigid adherence to textbooks or to externally supplied lesson plans. The inherent
heteroglossia of bilingual students instills fear among educators that they will risk lower test
scores on monoglossic tests, and thus leads to more powerful enforcement of mandates
(Dorner & Layton, 2013; López & Fránquiz, 2009; Palmer & Snodgrass-Rangel, 2011). Such large-
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
11
scale mandated curricula, regardless of quality, fundamentally obviate student engagement
because they are necessarily distant from the context in which they are taught.
Teachers must be professionally invested in the content and pedagogies they deliver,
and students must be personally invested in the ideas they engage with. This comes most easily
when teachers engage in designing or modifying the curriculum to suit their contexts. In the
process they bring in voices and experiences of students, parents or community members to
engage with their students. Teachers in TWDL programs inevitably find themselves inventing,
creating, and adapting curricula on their own, or else working against inappropriate curricula.
For instance, teachers may struggle to deliver content in Spanish that was originally developed
in English or designed for an English-speaking audience. In some contexts (e.g. the
Southeastern US; Cervantes-Soon, 2014; Colomer, 2018), teachers may come from Spanish-
speaking countries, with little understanding of the US context or respect for the
cultural/linguistic experiences of US Spanish-speaking emerging bilinguals. Other contexts (such
as Texas) boast many local bilingual teachers, but the subtractive ideologies of transitional
bilingual education, in which the target language is undervalued and English acquisition remains
the ultimate goal of the program, are deeply entrenched (Zuniga, Henderson, & Palmer, 2018).
The need to ensure that the curriculum reflects the community while simultaneously
challenging students academically and cognitively necessitates that teachers in DLBE programs
be prepared to develop curriculum; that they understand the work of situating critical, anti-
racist, culturally sustaining lessons within larger scopes/sequences that are developmentally
appropriate and rigorous and meet a school’s overall goals. Unfortunately, such processes of
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
12
curriculum development is no longer assumed to be part of teachers’ work in many teacher
preparation programs (Sleeter & Flores Carmona, 2017, p. 2).
It is important for the project of equity in TWDL that teachers receive professional
development and support in adapting and developing critical, multicultural, anti-racist content
materials that support all students’ bilingualism and biliteracy, high academic achievement,
cultural awareness, and critical consciousness. An excellent resource for professional
development and ongoing support for teachers in this area is the recent book “Un-
standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom,” which
provides the rationale, as well as resources, for teachers who are working to reclaim this aspect
of their professional identities (Sleeter & Flores Carmona, 2017). Another tool is
“Understanding by Design”, useful both for preservice and in-service teachers in any context
(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
Delivering the TWDL Curriculum: pedagogies of inclusion
Beyond the materials and ideas that are selected to receive focus in lessons, the
participation structures we set up in the classroom make up a critical and often “hidden”
(Apple, 1990) part of the curriculum. How we teach imparts lessons just as much as what we
teach: from the structure of a lesson and the organization of a classroom, children may emerge
from classroom experiences believing they already possess knowledge worth sharing; they may
come away with the impression that their voice is not as important as others’ voices; or they
may ultimately be led to believe they cannot even talk appropriately for the classroom. In an
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
13
effort to support broader awareness of the hidden curriculum, I am calling for teachers to
engage in pedagogies of inclusion.
One element of pedagogies of inclusion is developing an awareness of participation
structures, and ensuring these are explicitly focused on equitable participation for all.
Grounded in a sociocultural theory of learning, I assume that learning happens with
engagement: when students talk about ideas and listen to others, they co-construct new
knowledge; when students talk and listen to engaging new language practices, they acquire
them. Teachers need to think carefully about turn-taking patterns in their classrooms: how are
they ensuring all students’ voices are heard in the classroom? (Palmer, 2008a, 2008b). Open-
ended whole class discussions tend to favor participation by those who feel most comfortable
in formal schooling spaces, usually members of the dominant (English speaking, middle class,
US-born) community. Explicitly structuring a conversation with, for example, a “talking stick” or
clear instructions for roles or turn taking, scaffolds children to learn to share the floor.
Becoming more aware of details such as turn-taking and participation in classroom
conversations is part of teachers’ developing ideological clarity.
Across the board, TWDL literature calls for children to work together in groups in order
to facilitate language and content learning and active engagement (Howard, et al., 2018;
Lindholm-Leary, 2005). There is considerable literature exploring the patterns of engagement of
children in “bilingual pairs” and groups in TWDL contexts (Angelova, Gunawardena, & Volk,
2006; Fitts, 2006; Henderson & Palmer, 2015; Lee, Hill-Bonnet, & Raley, 2011). While
groupwork is crucial and children learn important lessons when they work together, merely
putting children into groups does not guarantee equitable participation and engagement.
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
14
Groupwork is complex (Cohen & Lotan, 1995), and children must be explicitly taught the skills
to engage equitably and learn together in pairs or groups. It has long been understood that
ensuring equity in these spaces takes constant and deliberate work. Developing critical
consciousness will help teachers to build and structure group activities that balance status
along various dimensions, maximizing equitable interaction and learning opportunities.
Pedagogies of inclusion also refer to centering the interactional/discourse patterns, the
voices, and the stories/contributions of those typically marginalized in our classrooms. Scholars
in Linguistic Anthropology have explored and documented ways that children raised in different
communities bring different communicative expectations to school with them (Heath, 1986;
Heller & Martin-Jones, 2001; McCarty, 2005; Michaels, 1981). In their families and
communities, children learn to hear and tell stories in unique ways; they learn to value certain
literacy activities over others, and to express their ideas using different discourse patterns. By
raising their own critical consciousness, teachers who are aware of these differences and open
to different ways of knowing and expressing ideas have the potential to authentically engage
with all of their students (Bang & Medin, 2010). Such authentic engagement with students’ own
community epistemologies and literacies will support students’ construction of academic
identities, crucial to their academic success (Palmer, 2008a)
Delivering the TWDL Curriculum: Intentional language engagement
TWDL programs necessarily demand rich and sheltered opportunities for bi/multilingual
language engagement throughout the curriculum. This necessity brings to the surface
challenges on several levels as we consider what languages and language practices must or
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
15
should be included in the sanctioned languages of the classroom, and how they should be
arranged.
Let us first consider the two (or more) named program languages, as conventionally
defined: standard English, standard Spanish, standard Mandarin, etc. Given the presence of
students who are learners of both (or all) program languages, teachers must constantly be
aware of the language demands in all of their lessons. With such awareness comes a risk that
teachers will succumb to simplification in their instructional practices - either of language or of
content - in order to accommodate children from one or the other language background. This is
a particular risk when teachers are instructing in a minoritized language, for several reasons.
First, it is the nature of language dominance that children who are the speakers of
dominant languages assume they are entitled to understand what is said in a context. In the US
we struggle constantly against the dominance of English, such that instruction in any other
language is marked, noticed, and subject to questioning by members of the dominant
community – even in the context of a TWDL program (Nuñez & Palmer, 2017). In other words,
English dominant speakers in TWDL programs tend to push back against minority language
instruction, and teachers must constantly struggle to maintain a space for non-English
languages (DePalma, 2010; Palmer, 2009b). Second, due to societal dominance and the impact
of their own schooling, even bilingual certified teachers are often themselves stronger in the
dominant language and/or insecure about their bilingual competencies, making it easier for
them to choose to teach in and through English (Ek, Sánchez, & Quijada Cerecer, 2013). Third,
appropriate and more attractive materials are usually available in the dominant language. All of
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
16
these forces are set up against a DLBE program’s goal of centering and honoring the “target” or
non-English language (e.g. Spanish).
Now if we move beyond consideration of the two standard registers, beyond the
dichotomy of the “dominant” and “minority/target” language, we arrive at another layer of
complexity. In some cases, teachers are quite strong in one or the other – or both – standard
registers of the target languages of a program, but they are not familiar with nor respectful of
the local varieties or hybrid language practices of students and their families (Briceño, 2018;
Martínez, Hikida, & Durán, 2015). These monoglossic ideologies, or ideologies of linguistic
purism related to standard registers of named languages, can be detrimental for students
whose home languages reflect hybridity or variation. In fact, most DLBE programs isolate
program languages (e.g. English and Spanish) throughout the entire program, adhering rigidly
to a separation of languages that implies exclusive focus upon standard registers of each
language. Such rigidity can have the unintended consequence of undermining bilingual
students’ bilingual identities and devaluing their everyday hybrid language practices (Lee, Hill-
Bonnet, & Gillespie, 2008; McCollum, 1999; Palmer, Martínez, Mateus, & Henderson, 2014).
Furthermore, in contexts with strict language separation policies students have less opportunity
to develop metalinguistic awareness, which is crucial for such bilingual practices as
translation/interpretation and operating across language communities (Dorner, Orellana & Li-
Grining, 2007).
How can TWDL educators resolve – or at least straddle – this obvious tension between
the responsibility to develop students’ skills in standard registers of both English and Spanish
(especially Spanish); and the need to honor bilingualism and bilingual students’ home
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
17
vernacular language practices and develop metalinguistic skills? There is no easy answer to this
question; however, having explored the issue with strong and thoughtful simultaneous bilingual
teachers (Palmer, Martínez, Mateus & Henderson, 2014), I propose the following.
First, it is clearly imperative that teachers support language and content learning
simultaneously through a range of creative and active sheltering techniques, without reducing
their expectations for either language or content learning (Gibbons, 2002; Walqui, 2006). The
curriculum must offer children the chance to fully develop biliteracy and academic competence;
no one questions this requirement in TWDL education. This requires deep attention to both
language and content, in both program languages, throughout the program. I believe it is
easiest to ensure such deep attention to both languages and all required content through an
active and intentional plan for language use that matches the language backgrounds and needs
of the population the program serves. Although we have traditionally defined our TWDL
programs through blanket percentages, such as “50/50” or “90/10” (or “70/30” or “80/20”),
there is no one recipe that suits all students or all programs, and at best these percentages
merely serve to unify a community around their commitments to each of their program
languages. There is no magic in these numbers.
What’s more, I caution educators to be suspicious of one-size-fits-all program models. I
council caution in the face of of top-down, large-scale implementation plans, especially if they
do not invest deeply in teachers’ professional preparation, or if they rigidly demand fidelity to a
district- or state-provided recipe (Palmer, Zuñiga & Henderson, 2015). Promoters who tout
these programs’ effectiveness for ‘all students’ are frequently defining success narrowly or
painting with a broad brush. There is never an easy recipe for academic, linguistic, and
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
18
sociocultural success for a diverse population of learners; there is always a need for
professional and community engagement, ongoing investment, and ideological clarity.
That said, we do have evidence about what types of programmatic structures have
worked with certain populations. We know, for instance, from long-standing research by Dr.
Lindholm-Leary, that (perhaps unsurprisingly) middle class English dominant students in TWDL
schools learn more Spanish when they have more time in school focused upon that language
(Lindholm-Leary, 2000). From this same longitudinal, large-scale study, as well as from several
others over the past 20+ years, we also know that Spanish-dominant emerging bilingual
students perform just as well in English when they learn in a program that provides a majority
of their instruction in Spanish, as long as they are also provided excellent instruction in English
(e.g., Lindholm-Leary, 2001; Rolstad, Mahoney & Glass, 2005). It is beyond the scope of this
paper to review all that we know about the value of providing different students opportunities
to learn in two or more languages; suffice to say that all students appear to benefit from this
experience regardless of their personal linguistic, racial, or ethnic profile; they benefit in
different ways, and for different reasons, and we have much remaining to investigate to fully
understand the complexity of these relationships.
We also have increasing evidence that Spanish-English simultaneous bilingual students
(who are more and more the population served in TWDL and other bilingual programs) thrive in
their academic and linguistic development in a program of paired literacy (Escamilla et al.,
2014) or translanguaging pedagogies (García & Kleyn, 2016; Sánchez et al., 2017). By
“translanguaging pedagogies,” I mean a structured, planned and intentional use of two
languages in the same space and often at the same time, with the explicit pedagogical intention
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
19
of developing emerging bilingual students’ biliteracy and academic skills. The term has
unfortunately been misunderstood by some to mean “a sort of linguistic free-for-all” (Fred
Genesee, personal communication, November 2018). I quite agree with critics that while a
“free-for-all” may ultimately result in powerful language and content learning for simultaneous
bilingual students (we do not know, but I believe it might), it would most likely not be
productive in a TWDL context. At least in the English-dominant context of the United States,
Spanish would not thrive in a “free-for-all” with English-dominant speakers present.
Rather, what I am describing is a clearly structured language allocation plan that
includes time for focused instruction on challenging, grade-level academic content in each of
the standard registers of a program’s target languages; and time for bilingual engagement, with
activities such as translation/interpretation, bilingual discussions, or engagement with bilingual
texts. During this bilingual time, teachers may explicitly ask students to draw on a text in one
language and develop a response in another, or to draw on resources across both (or all) their
standard languages to collaboratively produce a written or oral report (which could be bilingual
or monolingual, depending upon the intended audience) (Celic & Seltzer, 2011; Sánchez et al.,
2017). In other words, along with designating certain instructional periods or topics to be
“Spanish focus” and “English focus,” schools might explicitly designate a “translanguaging” or
“bilingual focus” time during the school day. Sánchez, et al. (2017) offer an elaborate
description of one possible model for a TWDL program that incorporates translanguaging
pedagogies. Additionally, the CUNY-NYSIEB website (https://www.cuny-nysieb.org/) provides a
tremendous wealth of resources and ideas for supporting bilingual development for students
across the biliteracy spectra within TWBE (and other educational) programs.
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
20
I am asserting that without sacrificing students’ opportunities to learn and practice
standard language registers in both program languages, TWDL schools can and should develop
new structures that engage children’s developing bilingual skills. This will support positive
identity development for ALL their students (García-Mateus & Palmer, 2017). However, given
the lower status of vernacular and hybrid language practices in our society, the opportunity to
think, talk, and work in one’s full linguistic repertoire is most important for those who come
from families and communities in which non-standard, non-middle-class language practices are
the norm – in other words, for the students that bilingual programs were initially developed to
serve.
Fundamentally, teachers need to develop the ideological clarity to understand that
whether or not particular language practices are part of a standard register of any particular
named language, a child’s language practices are expressions of their culture, identity, and
cognitive strength, and are therefore intelligent and creative and quite adequate to sustain
academic thinking and to support learning (Palmer & Martínez, 2013). Embracing children’s
vernacular language practices, allowing children the space to talk about their ideas using their
entire linguistic repertoires (even if this means drawing on two or more named languages at
once), sends children the message that they are worthy and capable of participating in school
conversations – that their knowledge counts in the classroom.
The Challenge of Monoglossic High Stakes Accountability. It is a tremendous challenge
for public schools to value bilingual children’s full linguistic repertoires and to maintain
enriched biliteracy-oriented programs, in the midst of high stakes, mostly monolingual (and
entirely monoglossic) accountability mandates. In a very tangible way, the only language
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
21
practices that truly “count” in US schools are standard English language practices. When
assessment carries high stakes for accountability, curriculum tends to conform around it (Au,
2007). There is mounting evidence that due to their tendency to score lower in accountability
measures bilingual children are particularly vulnerable to the narrowing of curriculum that
accompanies high stakes testing (Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Palmer & Snodgrass-Rangel, 2011;
Valenzuela, 2005). This includes both high-stakes state standardized tests in English, and
standardized tests in Spanish or other home languages, as well as formative assessments in
either English or home languages. This is due at least in part to students’ bilingualism, which is
not well measured using tools in either language (Escamilla, Butvilofsky, & Hopewell, 2017;
Shohamy, 2011).
Because of the inextricable connection between curriculum and assessment, if TWDL
programs are to be permitted to thrive, then high stakes single-measure accountability systems
must be replaced with multiple-measures, including measures of both/all program language
development and bilingual measures of content understanding. We must develop and then use
better ways to assess and understand the language and content knowledge of bilingual
students (Shohamy, 2011). Professional educators need the autonomy to engage in a range of
meaningful assessment processes that support rich and engaged bilingual learning. The critical
multicultural curricula required to support diverse communities in TWDL programs also
necessitates alternative and enriching forms of assessment, such as portfolios, student run
conferences and culminating presentations (Miranda & Cherng, 2018).
Conclusion
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
22
Questions revolving around the knowledge we value in TWDL, the structures we select
for distributing this knowledge to and with students, and the language practices we honor in
this process are central to considerations of equity. Cutting across all considerations is an
overarching need to put critical consciousness at the core. If we center the historically
marginalized as we select and organize the content of our language arts, math, science, social
studies, etc., and we value the lived experiences of members of our own TWDL communities as
an integral part of that content, we can support all students to meet academic standards while
empowering them to transform their reality. If our classroom is intentionally organized to
ensure all students have equitable access to learning experiences and academic identities, our
students will learn to interact with one another in ways that produce greater equity, and
hopefully take those skills with them beyond our classrooms, beyond our school, to transform
our world. If we value the epistemologies, literacy practices, and hybrid/vernacular language
practices of marginalized cultures and communities within the practices of our school, then our
school can become a space for authentic, humanizing cross-cultural engagements that allow all
students and their parents to become empowered.
TWDL presents us with a unique and amazing opportunity: to bring communities
together under a banner of building equitable, multilingual, multicultural communities; to teach
our children to lead the way into a better future. In order to realize this vision, we must pay
direct attention to equity in every moment as we implement TWDL programs.
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
23
Alfaro, C., & Hernández, A. (2018). Un autoanálisis crítico para docentes de la enseñanza
bilingüe: Ideología, pedagogía, acceso y equidad (IPAE). RASE: Revista de la Asociación
de Sociología de la Educación, 11(3), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.7203/RASE.11.3.13088
Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D., & Volk, D. (2006). Peer teaching and learning: Co-constructing
language in a dual language first grade. Language and Education, 20, 173–190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780608668722
Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, Inc.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis.
Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.
Bakhtin, M. K. (1998). The dialogic imagination. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the
navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20392
Barbian, E., Gonzales, G. C., & Mejía, P. (Eds.). (2017). Rethinking bilingual education.
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Bartolomé, L., & Balderrama, M. (2001). The need for educators with political and ideological
clarity: Providing our children with “the best.” In M. Reyes, J. Halcón, & C. Genishi (Eds.),
The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp. 48–64).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Briceño, A. (2018). “En Español esa palabra no tiene ningún sentido:” A cross-case analysis of
three Mexican American dual language teachers’ language ideologies and instructional
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
24
differences. International Multilingual Research Journal, 12(4), 288–301.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2018.1470436
Celic, C., & Seltzer, K. (2011). Translanguaging: a CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators. CUNY-
NYSIEB, The Graduate Center: City University of New York.
Cervantes-Soon, C. G. (2014). A critical look at dual language immersion in the new Latin@
diaspora. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1), 64–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2014.893267
Cervantes-Soon, C. G., Dorner, L., Palmer, D., Heiman, D., Schwerdtfeger, R., & Choi, J. (2017).
Combating inequalities in two-way language immersion programs: Toward critical
consciousness in bilingual education spaces. Review of Research in Education, 41(1),
403–427. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X17690120
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous
classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99–120.
Colomer, S. E. (2018). Understanding racial literacy through acts of (un)masking: Latinx teachers
in a new Latinx diaspora community. Race Ethnicity and Education. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13613324.2018.1468749
DePalma, R. (2010). Language use in the two-way classroom: Lessons from a Spanish-English
bilingual kindergarten. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Diamond, J., & Spillane, J. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools:
challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176.
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
25
Dorner, L. M., Orellana, M. F., & Li-Grining, C. P. (2007). “I Helped My Mom,” and It Helped Me:
Translating the Skills of Language Brokers into Improved Standardized Test Scores.
American Journal of Education, 113(3), 451–478. https://doi.org/10.1086/512740
Dorner, L. M., & Layton, A. (2013). What makes a “good” school? Data and competing
discourses in a multilingual charter network. The infrastructure of accountability:
Mapping data use and its consequences across the American education system, 145-162.
Ek, L. D., Sánchez, P., & Quijada Cerecer, P. D. (2013). Linguistic violence, insecurity, and work:
Language ideologies of Latina/o bilingual teacher candidates in Texas. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 7(3), 197–219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2013.768144
Escamilla, K., Butvilofsky, S., & Hopewell, S. (2017). What gets lost when English-only writing
assessment is used to assess writing proficiency in Spanish-English emerging bilingual
learners? International Multilingual Research Journal, 0(0), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1273740
Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., Soltero-González, L., Ruiz-Figueroa, O.,
& Escamilla, M. (2014). Biliteracy from the start: literacy squared in action. Philadelphia:
Caslon Publishing.
Fitts, S. (2006). Reconstructing the status quo: Linguistic interaction in a dual-language school.
Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 337–365.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition. New York: Continuum
Publishing.
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
26
García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: learning from
classroom moments. New York, NY: Routledge.
García, O., Menken, K., Velasco, P., & Vogel, S. (2018). Dual language education in NYC: A
potential unfulfilled? In B. Arias & M. Fee (Eds.), Profiles of dual language education in
the 21st centruy (pp. 38–55). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
García-Mateus, S., & Palmer, D. (2017). Translanguaging pedagogies for positive identities in
two-way dual language bilingual education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education,
16(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1329016
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language
learners in the mainstream classroom. Westport, CT: Heinemann.
Heath, S. B. (1986). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. In B.
Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Heller, M., & Martin-Jones, M. (2001). Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference.
(J. Lemke, Ed.). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Henderson, K. I., & Palmer, D. K. (2015). Teacher scaffolding and pair work in a bilingual pre-
kindergarten classroom. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education,
3(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.3.1.04hen
Howard, E., Lindholm-Leary, K., Rogers, D., Olague, N., Medina, J., Kennedy, B., … Christian, D.
(2018). Guiding principles for dual language education – Third Edition. Washingon, DC:
Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resource-
center/publications/guiding-principles-3
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
27
Howard, E., & Sugarman, J. (2007). Realizing the vision of two-way immersion: Fostering
effective programs and classrooms. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Kibler, A., Salerno, A., & Hardigree, C. (2014). ‘More than being in a class’: adolescents’
ethnolinguistic insights in a two-way dual-language program. Language and Education,
28(3), 251–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2013.822880
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Lee, J. S., Hill-Bonnet, L., & Gillespie, J. (2008). Learning in two languages: Interactional spaces
for becoming bilingual speakers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 11(1), 75–94.
Lee, J. S., Hill-Bonnet, L., & Raley, J. (2011). Examining the effects of language brokering on
student identities and learning opportunities in dual immersion classrooms. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education, 10(5), 306–326.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2001). Dual Language Education. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2005). Review of research and best practices on effective features of dual
language education programs. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved
from http://www.lindholm-leary.com/resources/review_research.pdf
Lindholm-Leary, K. (2016). Students’ Perceptions of Bilingualism in Spanish and Mandarin Dual
Language Programs. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 59–70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2016.1118671
López, M. M., & Fránquiz, M. E. (2009). ‘We teach reading this way because it is the model
we’ve adopted’: asymmetries in language and literacy policies in a Two-Way Immersion
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
28
programme. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 175–200.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520902867176
Martin-Beltran, M. (2010). Positioning Proficiency: How Students and Teachers (De)Construct
Language Proficiency at School. Linguistics and Education: An International Research
Journal, 21(4), 257–281.
Martínez, R. A., Hikida, M., & Durán, L. (2015). Unpacking Ideologies of Linguistic Purism: How
Dual Language Teachers Make Sense of Everyday Translanguaging. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 9(1), 26–42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2014.977712
McCarty, T. (2005). Language, literacy, and power in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
McCollum, P. (1999). Learning to value English: cultural capital in a two-way bilingual program.
Bilingual Research Journal, 23(2 & 3), 113–133.
Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing Time”: Children’s narrative styles and differential access to
literacy. Language in Society, 10(3), 423–442.
Miranda, C. P., & Cherng, H.-Y. S. (2018). Accountability Reform and Responsive Assessment for
Immigrant Youth. Theory Into Practice, 57(2), 119–126.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1425817
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a
qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2),
132–141.
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
29
Nuñez, I., & Palmer, D. (2017). Who will be bilingual? A Critical Discourse Analysis of a Spanish-
English Bilingual Pair. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 14(4), 294–319.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2016.1266266
Palmer, D. K. (2008a). Building and destroying students’ “academic identities”: the power of
discourse in a two-way immersion classroom. Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(6), 1–
24.
Palmer, D. K. (2008b). Diversity Up Close: Building alternative discourses in the dual immersion
classroom. In T. Fortune & D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to Multilingualism: Evolving
Perspectives on Immersion Education (pp. 97–116). London: Multilingual Matters.
Palmer, D. K. (2009a). Code switching and symbolic power in a second grade two-way
classroom: A teacher’s motivation system gone awry. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(1),
42–59.
Palmer, D. K. (2009b). Middle-Class English Speakers in a Two-Way Immersion Bilingual
Classroom: Everybody Should Be Listening to Jonathan Right Now . . . TESOL Quarterly,
43(2), 177–202.
Palmer, D. K., & Martínez, R. A. (2013). Teacher Agency in Bilingual Spaces A Fresh Look at
Preparing Teachers to Educate Latina/o Bilingual Children. Review of Research in
Education, 37(1), 269–297. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X12463556
Palmer, D. K., Martínez, R. A., Mateus, S. G., & Henderson, K. (2014). Reframing the Debate on
Language Separation: Toward a Vision for Translanguaging Pedagogies in the Dual
Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 757–772.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12121
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
30
Palmer, D. K., & Snodgrass-Rangel, V. (2011). High Stakes Accountability and Policy
Implementation: Teacher Decision Making in Bilingual Classrooms in Texas. Education
Policy, 25(4), 614–647.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.). (2017). Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning
for Justice in a Changing World. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Peterson, B. (2017a). La Escuela Fratney: Creating a bilingual school as a greenhouse of
democracy. In E. Barbian, G. C. Gonzales, & P. Mejía (Eds.), Rethinking Bilingual
Education (pp. 153–162). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Peterson, B. (2017b). The struggle for bilingual education. In E. Barbian, G. C. Gonzales, & P.
Mejía (Eds.), Rethinking Bilingual Education (pp. 274–279). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking
Schools.
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta- analysis of program
effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572–594.
Sánchez, M. T. (Maite), García, O., & Solorza, C. (2017). Reframing language allocation policy in
dual language bilingual education. Bilingual Research Journal, 0(0), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1405098
Shohamy, E. (2011). Assessing Multilingual Competencies: Adopting Construct Valid Assessment
Policies. The Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4781.2011.01210.x
For the Forum on Equity and Dual Language Education, Dec. 7-8, 2018, UCLA Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles
31
Sleeter, C. E., & Flores Carmona, J. (2017). Un-standardizing curriculum: multicultural teaching
in the standards-based classroom (Second editon). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Trueba, E. T., Bartolomé, L. I., & Macedo, D. (2000). Immigrant voices: In search of educational
equity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Valenzuela, A. (2005). Leaving children Behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino
youth. (C. Sleeter, Ed.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffordling instruction for English language learners: A conceptual
framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159–180.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design, Expanded 2nd Edition (2nd ed).
Alexandria: ASCD.
Zuniga, C. E., Henderson, K. I., & Palmer, D. K. (2018). Language policy toward equity: how
bilingual teachers use policy mandates to their own ends. Language and Education,
32(1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2017.1349792